|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-23 11:29:06
I agree 100%, we should and must learn from history, and thereby avoid repeating mistakes already made. Of course, I refer to different lessons than you. I refer to the appeasement of Hitler in the 1930s. The world didn't show any backbone when dealing with him, and consequently suffered greatly.
Also, the Rwandan genocide of the early 90's. The UN was made aware of what was going on by Gen. Dallaire, but did not intervene. Between 800k and 1M people died as a result of reluctance and hesitance to use force. The genocide didn't stop until the victimised group started fighting back. BTW neither did the US do anything and I fault them greatly for this. But, they would have been criticized for intervening by some I'm sure as well.
It is well documented that nations, as well as people, go as far as they are allowed to. They push and push, and if nobody says anything, why stop? Iraq has defied multiple resolutions, most recently of course 1441. Res. 688 which deals with human rights is still obviously not being complied with, and the list goes on. Saddam Hussein has been given a multitude of chances to comply, but does not. Not just with 1441 or disarmament but numerous others (such as 688). And why does he not comply? Because nothing happens to him when he doesn't. You can't reason with the unreasonable, and as horrible as war is, there really is no other option. All other methods have been tried.
What the US says should not be the reasons for going to war. IMO they have little credibility in this dept. You're quite right in saying that they have an infamous history of making bad decisions. And as for propaganda it is nothing new, and will never cease. Everyone uses it, and it realy is quite easy to filter out. But the solution to this current crisis can be found in what the UN has said, and the evidence they have given. As well as from what Saddam himself has shown. If the US were against this war I would still be for it.
Believe me, I do not take the prospect of war lightly. It will be my generation fighting it, and from talking to vets, and reading books, I understand (as much as one can without being there) that it is a most horrible and indescribably painful and sorrowful time. However, what is the other option? Have a WMD attack on our soil five years down the road because we didn't want suffering now? That is not a viable option IMO.
Reply to this message
|
Show in topic
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-02-23 18:33:58
What are the parameters for declaring war of this sort?
There are many countries that have defied UN resolutions, secretly developed WMDs, etc(The US and Israel, Zimbabwe, etc). The defiance of a UN resolution therefore cannot be it. Aggression(China annexing Tibet, the US invasion of Panama)? Nope, lots of countries are guilty. 9?11 Terrorist attacks? Partly. The US went after Osama and the Taliban, but failed to produce results that will be of any long term significance. Now Iraq? The 9/11 terrorists were mostly Saudi. Why does the US forgive Saudi Arabia for sending death by terror to the US? The Saudi regime that runs OPEC is US-friendly. Iraq is not. Plus, they only accept the Euro. Those two facts outweigh any other arguments that Iraq is any worse than anyone else.
China's record on human rights abuses, crushing democracy, invasion and annexation of other nations, and it's willingness to supply countries with arms to spread communism by the sword far exceed anything that Iraq, Israel, even the US has done so far. Why does the US not stand up to China? They have an economic interest to keep communism in China working because of huge profits on Nike shoes, etc. The US only acts in it's own self interest and history, if you can find it untainted, proves it. Why should we believe the US now, when they have proven they will lie for their own self interest?
Saddam should be brought to the UN for a war crimes trial, and the UN should administer the governance of the Iraqi nation. NOT the US whose mantra consists of 'self-interest rules'.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-02-24 01:51:22
You leave out quite a few important points, and are incorrect in others. You are oversimplifying the situation.
First of all, the US secretly developed WMD? I don't think that was a very well kept secret, seeing as they dropped a nuclear bomb on Japan. As for chemical and biological weapons, I have never heard of the US denying having them either. In fact, they made quite the idiotic habit of selling them to people like Saddam Hussein. And you're right, it's not just the defiance of a UN resolution that necessitates force, otherwise both the Israelis and Palestinians (among others) would be long gone. But none of the nations you mentioned are a threat to world security, Iraq is. None of the nations you mentioned have proven willing to use WMD, Iraq has. It is the type of resolutions that count; ones that deal with global security. Resolutions have varying degrees of importance and therefore varying degrees of enforcement.
Force should always be a last option. If a nation refuses to comply, but is of little threat to others outside their country, then there are better ways to deal with them, eg sanctions. It's a shame about the human rights violations, but if the US intervened in every country where this happens, then think of the consequences and protests. As for China spreading communism still, this sounds a bit like a revival of McCarthyism. Great. China is terrible on human rights, but not the worst, and they leave most other countries alone nowadays. They are making improvements.
As for the Saudis, you fail to distinguish between people and government. It wasn't the Saudi government that attacked the US, it was Saudi nationals. Surely you see the problem in fighting the Saudis because of this? At any rate, (to the oil theory fans) if the US was after oil, why not invade SA? They have more oil than Iraq and the US already has troops there.
And we shouldn't believe the US. We should believe what the UN says. The UN says SAddam isn't disarming, and that he isn't co-operating to an acceptible degree. Seems pretty obvious to me.
The bottom line is that no other "administration" in the world has so frequently and consistently defied the UN, while simultaneously posing a threat to world security as Saddam's. I do agree, however, that he should be brought before the UN, and that the UN should govern Iraq after the war. Contrary to some people's beliefs, the case of Afghanistan is a success, and a similar style of 'occupation' should be instituted.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-01 11:40:20
Waterloo You say we should remember Hitler and the appeasement and how the world suffered for not showing any backbone but then incredibly you make this comparison to Saddam. Who is the world trying to appease now; who is trying to control the support of other countries with bribes of armnaments and economic pressures. Watch any news cast and you will see it is GW Bush. Saddam is just a small player
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Waterloo
Date: 2003-03-02 23:41:37
The situations are obviously not identical, but I didn't say that. The world is, however, appeasing Saddam; just in a different way. They let him defy UN resolution after UN resolution, and do nothing about it. Why? Because they don't want to use force. We've seen the consequences of this unnecessary reluctance too many times. Don't get me wrong, all other options should be tried first, but when they fail, there is no viable alternative.
Iraq hasn't complied: they continue to lie, and 'magically' discover new weapons, chemicals and documents they just plum forgot about all the time. Come on let's be serious. As for the bribes, I fail to see the relevance of them. All western countries bribe all poorer countries to some extent or another; this is nothing new. We give them money and food if they 'behave' according to our principles. If they misbehave, they get their aid cut off. At any rate what does it say about Turkey that they are so willing to accept these bribes? Why is nothing said about them?
"Saddam is just a small player "
I see. Well, perhaps your definition of a small player is different than mine. I don't see how a man with WMD, a history of using them, huge amounts of oil, who invaded a neighbouring country, and a constant threat to the region and world's security is a small player. Furthermore, why did the UN vote unanimously on disarming him if he has such a small role?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-05 21:27:47
Check out a resolution of the UN that was ignored. A/RES/44/240 from the 88th plenary meeting, 29 December 1989. Should countries that ignore UN resolutions be invaded and their regimes changed? Check out the UN resolutions that have been ignored in the past say, 20 years. Israel tops the list. Palestinians are back blowing up buses. There is no 'hot pursuit' that leads the US to Iraq. Only directives from oil companies are focused there.
An Iraqi ex-pat was on a radio talk show the other day, and he claims that F-16s flew close support/observation missions over the gassed Kurds. Did they intervene? Of course not. Kurdish independence would further break up control of the oil fields. The US does not want that. The gassing and murder of Kurds 'is a helpful action in the interests of the US'.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-04 16:28:03
Saddam seems to be quite clever and a very big player in this mid-Atlantic diplomacy rift.
His last-minute, half-attempts to disarm are just enough to keep those who profit from his regime on side and thwart those who want his regime ended from acting.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: fatmomma
Date: 2003-03-06 22:38:01
You are listening to too much CNN and not doing any research or just using common sense. Iraq has made no moves since the gulf war to warrant Bush's intense desire to attack. The USA is doing very little to rebuild Afghanistan; in fact Iran is contributing the most. Iraq is disarming; according to Blix; if it is not as quickly as you like; I think it is amazing that they are destroying their missiles so quickly when Bush and his cohorts are being adamant in their plan to bomb Iraq. There is also evidence that the USA instigated the gulf war by enticing Kuwaiti to overly drain joint Iraq/Kuwaiti oil fields. The Usa sat back and waited for their chance. I was disturbed by Bush's comment shortly after the World Trade bombing "You are either for us or against us" silencing any criticism for any action that they would take. No one wanted to appear to support the terrorists in any way; which no one I know does. Recently I heard on Propaganda CNN. Should we consider those who support peace to be unpatriotic. That is very much an attempt to silence critics.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-07 07:28:00
I have a copy of both Hitler's Mein Kampf and of Marx's Communist Manifesto. It seems that GW Bush is saying 'choose one or the other'. Guess which one I see him following?
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-08 12:18:04
Well then, since you seem to believe these ideas are the only relevant ones to choose from, I'd like to ask you:
Are you either for Hitler or Stalin?
After all, they were political contemporaries, opponents and supposedly stood for and implemented the doctrines that you deemed relevant.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-08 22:24:26
I am for Siddhartha Guatama. It seems that GW Bush is the one giving us the choice between Hitler and Stalin. Or, more to the point, Neitzsche and Lenin. I don't like either of those options, but at least Neitzsche made me think.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-10 22:50:01
It is good that you also choose to be enlightened.
Nietsche may not have been an optimist but his vision of man's challenge was not that of Hitler's "superman". He was not a Nazi even though his sister was pretty mixed up. Nietsche was also a theorist, a thinker. Hitler was a practitioner.
I chose to use "practitioners" as examples instead of "theorists" for a good reason. Since you claim to be a follower of the middle way you must also realize that the world of the "practitioners" is of a less enlightened level and functions in a more basic way. What matters above all is the protection of life as a process so that it may be perpetuated. As a Buddhist you must agree with it.
The desire to use WMD will destroy all life and the physical means to prevent that is to allow its natural reaction to eradicate it. America is the natural reactionary force. The role of the enlightened is to keep it focused and in check.
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Fleabag
Date: 2003-03-13 22:48:20
I agree with 99% of what you say. I can only disagree with 'America is the natural reaction' and with the words 'keep it focused and in check'.
I am not a Buddhist by subscription, just by loose theory. I started to write a book, called "What and Why: Policy, The Manifestation of Attitude'
and in it, I suggest that all things act for purpose, and only in humans is the result of action above neccesity.
As Aristotle once wrote, (I am qutoing this from a reference by Albert Speer) "Only through pursuit of excess does Man commit injustice, it is never commited when driven by neccesity"
The US is an unnatural force acting on another unnatural force( unless you believe in the 'will to power' and the twisted 'the strong survive, the weak submit' philosophies.
I believe the role of the 'enlightened' is to eradicate 'that which causes non-existence'. I also believe that theory is the writing on our 'blank slate' and as human computers we can only translate 'the action input' of others according to who or what did the programming.
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: jwitt
Date: 2003-03-14 17:37:21
Fleabag,
Question: just out of personal interest, was Speer's quote from Aristotle taken out of Inside the third Reich (the memoirs he wrote in prison)? If so, can you give me the page number? I'm just interested in the context in which he used it.
cheers
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: Vox
Date: 2003-03-14 22:41:22
"Only through pursuit of excess does Man commit injustice, it is never committed when driven by necessity"
I cannot agree with this because I believe "necessity" is a subjective measure and hence naturally invites disagreement and conflict (of interest).
"...all things act for purpose, and only in humans is the result of action above necessity."
Again, I believe hat one person's necessity is (often) another person's excess or "poverty of spirit".
"... The US is an unnatural force acting on another unnatural force( unless you believe in the 'will to power' and the twisted 'the strong survive, the weak submit' philosophies. I believe the role of the 'enlightened' is to eradicate 'that which causes non-existence'."
The force(s) that want to use WMD have designed their methods (currently) towards the destruction of the US and "its allies". While I do not have a problem with people(s) who want to challenge the US using peaceful methods, the use of WMD is against the process of life and cannot be permitted. Because the US is currently the prime target and the most physically formidable opponent I view the US as the natural reaction that can most effectively neutralize the abomination of life that "rogue entities" represent.
It has nothing to do with my views on the lifestyles or moral values of American popular culture. I think I have made clear those opinions elsewhere on these forums. The US allows people to express their visions in peaceful ways and that currently makes the US a suitable agent for life. At the same time, the US is a spiritually immature country (I am not speaking of religion) and that is why its actions need to be tempered.
"... that theory is the writing on our 'blank slate' and as human computers we
can only translate 'the action input' of others according to who or what did the programming."
I follow a different view of existence. In the framework of this belief, the "slate" is actually already fully occupied and has always been. What prevents us from "reading from it" is, as you call it, our "programming" and our limited mental powers. It is enlightenment which helps us read from "the slate" from time-to-time. This is why we are inherently "the same".
Vox Canadiana
Reply to this message
|
|
|
Contributor: cfallon
Date: 2003-03-07 11:49:45
I don't watch CNN and never have.
I'm sorry that I have no common sense.
Reply to this message
|
|
